On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 11:11:04AM +0100, Frank Wille wrote:
- Running a kthread and calling kpause() between the polls.
- Using a callout which reschedules itself after the poll.
The thread is quite a bit more heavyweight, but you have full freedom
to do what you want. The callout is pretty
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
Hi Paul,
Excerpts from Paul Goyette's message of Mo Feb 08 00:14:44 +0100 2010:
Can you try the attached diff, and set 'flags 1' in your config file?
The patch works fine. I would suggest to use flag 2, however, to be consistent
with the linux
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:29:51 +0100
Martin Husemann mar...@duskware.de wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 11:11:04AM +0100, Frank Wille wrote:
- Running a kthread and calling kpause() between the polls.
- Using a callout which reschedules itself after the poll.
The thread is quite a bit more
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:09:55 +0100
Martin Husemann mar...@duskware.de wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:04:07PM +0100, Frank Wille wrote:
[...] May I acquire this mutex during a callout (which is a
softint, as I understand)? Will the softint sleep or busy-wait?
Depends on the mutex type,
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:12:10 +0100
Martin Husemann mar...@duskware.de wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:09:55PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
The wording is not explicit, but a softint is not allowed to block
on
s/softint/callout/ of course, sorry for the confusion.
*Now* you confused me!
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:35:35PM +0100, Frank Wille wrote:
IMHO that would allow my callout to sleep on acquiring the mutex?
A softint can sleep, a callout can not.
Martin
Perhaps not a very meaningful voice, but I think it makes sense to split
them.
Johnny
David Holland wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 11:03:44AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
This thread?
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2009/07/21/msg005526.html
That was later - that's
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:36:07PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:35:35PM +0100, Frank Wille wrote:
IMHO that would allow my callout to sleep on acquiring the mutex?
A softint can sleep, a callout can not.
s/can/should/
Joerg
Hmmm...
Eduardo Horvath wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, David Holland wrote:
Anyhow, it seems to me that isolating it from changes to ffs is likely
to result in less breakage over time, not more. Can you expand on your
reasoning some?
The most significant parts that are shared are the directory
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 11:40:50AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
The update process is very rare, and expected. Administrators carefully
connects a device when the machine is not running some important task. So
what I need here is to protect such a data adding no run-time performance
loss.
I have seen NFS fail (with the old 8K packets) on a network that was
badly terminated (back in the 10base2 days) because the back-to-back
packets self-collided while single packets with some spacing made it
fine.
I recall I once had an NFS problem that exhibited itself as failures
reading
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Adam Hamsik wrote:
On Feb,Monday 8 2010, at 9:33 PM, Eduardo Horvath wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Adam Hamsik wrote:
Are you sure that you can really finish this ? Currently you are working
on namei, ufs_lookup and many other issues. Make LFS not compilable is the
On Feb,Monday 8 2010, at 10:37 PM, Eduardo Horvath wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Adam Hamsik wrote:
On Feb,Monday 8 2010, at 9:33 PM, Eduardo Horvath wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Adam Hamsik wrote:
Are you sure that you can really finish this ? Currently you are working
on namei,
13 matches
Mail list logo
